Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The Orthodox Theological Research
Forum (O.T.R.F.) was held this year at St. Edmunds Hall, Oxford, dedicated to
Christos Yannaras, 2-5 September 2013. This conference attracted people from
all over the world, including Greece, France, Germany, Canada and U.K. The
unique feature of this gathering was the fact that Yannaras was present,
answering and commenting on many papers, allowing for a further understanding
of his thought, philosophy, theology and culture.

The conference began with a
conference address by Archbishop Anastasios of Albania (in abstentia) who
claimed that Yannaras is one of the most famous Greek writers today. Due to the
absence of Metropolitan Kallistos (because of health issues), Christos Yannaras
gave a brief introduction to the participants. He began by thanking everyone
for this conference, claiming: “I should like to extend my warm thanks to those
who had the idea of organizing this meeting and took the initiative to make it
a reality, those who undertook the care and responsibility of organizing it,
and those who provided the funds that have enabled it to take place. I should
also like to thank warmly all of you who have done me the great honour of
coming here today to engage in what is the first attempt to subject my
published work to critical discussion- its aims, its success or failure in
attaining these aims, and the mistakes and inadequacies of my work”. He later
gave a brief analysis of those elements and aspects of his work which he believes
have yet to be subjected to critical scrutiny. (His talk will be posted
tomorrow).

Revd Professor Andrew Louth
(University of Durham) gave a paper on ‘The Apophatic in Modern Orthodox
Theology – and Modern Philosophy’. He claimed that Orthodoxy is apophatic and
this apophaticism has brought interest to the Orthodox Church. Apophatic
theology has become prominent, especially in the last century, by a number of
scholars, including Metropolitan Kallistos, Christos Yannaras, Fr. Bulgakov.
Lossky identifies that the mystical goes hand in hand with apophaticism. He
identifies that apophaticism is a criterion. All of Christian theology is
apophatic. Lossky claims that apophaticism enables us to transcend in
knowledge; the apopahtic way is the road of repentance of Orthodox theology. Fr.
Dumitru Staniloae additionaly points out the importance of apophatic theology
concerning how we perceive God, in contrast not to catapahticism but rational
theology. Therefore, apophatic understanding of God is to be seen in our daily
life. Although we reflect on this reality, we cannot understand it. On the
other hand, Christos Yannaras’ apophaticism leads us to explain theology with
poetry, instead of rational language. Fr. Louth continued his paper analysing
the issue of language. There he expressed the view that there is no sacred
language, only privileged ones. Thus we need to refer to the Greek text in
order to see the disputes and dogmas of the past. There is no right or wrong
language. There are two attitudes, i.e. I) a personal, an individual experience
and II) there cannot be knowledge that the individual holds, we reach knowledge
through participation. This is the huge difference within the entire world,
civilisation and Christianity.

Dr Evaggelos Bartzis (Corinth, Greece) gave a paper on ‘Greek theology
after Christos Yannaras: the response to a prophetic call?’ He expressed
Yannaras’ idea of why do we do theology? Theology is seen as prophecy, it is
rooted in history. Prophecy is forwarded against heresy. Through praxis,
prophecy can be safeguarded. Therefore, we have dialogue with modernity. For
Yannaras nationalism is a heresy, an asymmetry in theological conscience.
Nationalism is a product of modernity, leading to issues of jurisdiction,
creating issues between catholicity and ecumenicity. The speaker explained that
the Church is a Eucharistic community that moves to the eschaton. He questioned
whether orthodox ecclesiology can be compatible with nationalism. We currently
observe that Orthodoxy past from the ecumenical to the local. Dr. Bartzis gave
the terms Ecumenism – Nationalism – Missianism, relating these terms with
history and politics, using the Greek paradigm. He identified the issue of
theology and mission, seeing the Church in the world, giving us three
eschatologies: a. apocalyptic eschatology, b. humanistic or optimistic
eschatology and c. prophetic eschatology. Additionally, he explained the
missiology, pointing out the positive side (love for those outside of the
Church) and the negative paradigm (colonialism and proselytism). After the
schism, Dr. Bartzis claimed that we have the formation of the Roman Catholic
Church and the Orthodox Church. This brought a different understanding of
catholicity. The Roman Catholics gave a quantitative understanding of
catholicity, as universality. Catholicity is a problem of an ideological unity.
Such a unity would need an authority, an infallible authority and an
understanding of faith of the individual. These are not errors, but a
historical need. On the other hand, the East continued to understand
Aristotle’s catholicity. He ended up by claiming that every Eucharistic
gathering is the realisation of the catholic Church; catholicity is the
realisation of the wholeness.

Pui Ip (Heythrop College) gave a
paper ‘On the patristic grounding of Yannaras’ ‘prosopo-centric ontology’: a
philosophical argument’. He claimed that Orthodox theology needs to continue
its patristic theology, but also use theology in a modern language. He claimed
that Yannaras’ ontology is faithful to the apophatic, patristic grounding. This
faithfulness can only be verified within ecclesial reality. The Church should
articulate its thought through philosophical language. He identified the fact
that today theologians are more flexible, and therefore in dialogue with
philosophy. Philosophy, however, does not have any relation with the
supernatural. If we take an apophatic stance in regards to knowledge, then we
are not held back by restricted formulations. We respect the ecclesial
tradition of the Church. We are, thus, able to be flexible.

Dr. Niki Tsironi was not able to
be present; nevertheless, her paper was read in the conference, entitled
‘Triviality transformed to eternity: comments on the Commentary on the Song of
Songs’. Revd Ciprian Burca (University of Winchester) followed, giving a paper
on ‘The Power of Submission: Christos Yannaras’ Reflections on Marriage’. The
key theme of his paper was ‘union’; union with God and union within marriage. Marriage
is not to be understood as an obstacle to perfection and salvation. We can
attain this belief from the fact that many saints were married. The speaker
then moved on to question whether Yannaras’ approach had changed over time.
Yannaras believes that the Trinity is the teacher for the existence of love. It
is the relationship which unites and promotes wholeness. At the end of the talk
Yannaras himself explained that even a dispute between the couple promotes the sharing
of a common life. A marriage is the sharing of life, through daily life. The
way of a marriage leads to sharing, inadvertently, without payment. He
continued, by claiming that when a mother remains sleepless next to her sick
child, she does not wish any payment. On the other hand, a monk who remains
sleepless does so in order to receive payment, mainly in the next life. We as
Christians have lost the meaning of the ecclesial character of the wedding.
Marriage today is the legalisation of the sexual relation. Yannaras is, thus,
explaining the asceticism of marriage. Professor Yannaras continued, by
changing the theme and expressing his belief that a Christian does not need the
geronta (the elder, the starets). Today we live a tragedy. If a heresy is revealed
today, the believers will go to the elder and not to the bishop. Therefore, the
Church is substituted by the charismatic people…if they are that.

Revd Dimitrios Harper (University
of Winchester) talked about ‘The Place of Morality in the Theological Schema of
Christos Yannaras’. The speaker analysed his theme by comparing and analysing
many philosophers, including Kant and Nietzsche. Fr. Dimitrios compares the
views expressed by Yannaras with Kantian theories and understandings. He claims
that pietism consists of an eschatological heresy, adopted from the East by the
West. He highlighted, among other themes, the contradictions of approach to the
achievement of ethos in Yannaras’ work.

The third day of the conference
began with the Divine Liturgy, celebrated in the chapel, located within St.
Edmund’s Hall. Fr. Andreas Andreopoulos, later expressed his gladness and
thrill for co-celebrating with two of his students, while other of his students
were chanting. This showed the importance of the existence of an MA in Britain
(specifically at the University of Winchester), on Orthodox Studies, bringing
together Orthodox from all around the world, creating a new centre for
Orthodoxy.

The first talk of the day was
given by Metropolitan Kyrillos of Abydos (University of Athens), on ‘Orthodoxy
and the West in modern Greece: the work of Christos Yannaras’. He looked into
Yannaras’ book ‘Orthodoxy and the West’. He explained that Christianity was
intended as a new mode of being, not just merely as another religion. However,
in the West, individualism is expressed, following a moralistic paradigm. The
God of the West is a punisher, a law giver. This promotes a legalistic
perception of God. Returning to the East, the bishop explained that the
national churches follow the Barbarian paradigm; it is alien to the synodical
system of Orthodoxy. Theology cannot be set apart from the Eucharistic practice
and the patristic tradition of the Church. Metropolitan Kyrillos later stated
that the Greek state has remained indifferent to the Ecclesiastical Renaissance
of the last decades. He identified that Greek education has low standards and
how theological studies are seen in contempt. On the other hand, Orthodoxy is a
seed which must be placed in the West; however, she is still growing in the
East. Is Ecumenical dialogue relevant
today? Bishop Kyrillos explained that it is; however, the speaker identified
that Yannaras’ book shows that he is against the dialogue. Inevitably he
identifies that we cannot visualise a reform within the Church because it goes
against the Trinitarian example. Professor Yannaras commented on certain
aspects of the paper, explaining that the history of the Church is a total
failure. Today we have more than 300 churches. The challenge is how we can
transform this reality into a relation. Does the Ecumenical dialogue respond to
the needs of the Church and the faithful? Yannaras stressed his belief that
monks, poets and those in the periphery of the Church should be involved in the
dialogue, and not bishops and University professors; an interesting and
revolutionary notion (if we are to look at the life and the course of
Ecumenism).

Redv Dr Andreas Andreopoulos
(University of Winchester) gave a paper on ‘Hatjidakis and Yannaras: A Quest
for a Dynamic Relationship between Greece and Western Europe’. The speaker
presented a few strands of thought, since the topic is great. It is, however,
an unusual topic. Theologians talk about theologians, musicians about
musicians… Nevertheless, here he is comparing two distinct people, ideas and
approaches. Here Fr. Andreas wished to point out the Greek identity and
culture. Greek surrealism was adopted by poets, giving new spirit to tradition,
promoting therefore a renewed sense of identity. Hellenic identity has been
quite elusive. Nonetheless, dialogue between Greece and the West is an
inclusive dialogue. After WW II, Greece was not a leader, nor did it follow
Communism. Most importantly, Greece could not find a path of its own. Fr.
Andreas pointed out Yannaras’ significance, explaining the issues of ethos, his
beliefs against pietism and his ideas for the future. The speaker later spoke
about Hatjidakis, who had thrown his Oscar in the dustbin, which was thankfully
salvaged by his mother. Hatjidakis’ work, especially during the Greek junta was
analysed, showing how a poetic and romantic piece of work can be the greatest
anti-junta propaganda. He followed the poetic path and not the philosophical,
which Yannaras did. However, both these figures remind us of each other, i.e.
Greekness, a poetic-philosophical stance, both fought against the
touristic-ancient Greek course and mentality
of modern Greece. The speaker at the end claimed that a better contrast would
be between Yannaras and Papadiamantis, being the obvious choice. However, this
contrast between Yannaras and Hatjidakis is a more exciting one.

Sotiris Mitralexis (Freie
Universitat, Berlin) presented a paper ‘On Christos Yannaras’ Propositions for
a Critical Ontology’. He explained various notions, including the preconditions
for a critical ontology: logos, relation, consciousness; ontological
categories: essence, particulars and activities; the activities (ενέργειαι) as a primary ontological
category; otherness (ετερότητα)
and artistic expression; axiomatic dichotomies and problematic ontologies;
different accesses to reality: a personal causal principle and the fullness of
participation and attaining reality, attaining truth. He finalised explaining
that the question of a critical ontology is a question of meaning, a question
of truth. This question, however, is not
limited to the philosophical world, but it extends to the world of human
coexistence, of civilization and history.

Dr. Stoyan Tanev (University of
Southern Denmark) spoke about ‘Christos Yannaras and the Encounter between
Theology and Physics’. He explained that theologians have a lot to say to
scientists; however, this does not happen. On the other hand, physicists are
scared of using the term ‘energy’. It is too philosophical for them. Orthodoxy
theology, however, embraces this idea.

The third day ended with a paper
given by Dr Evaggelia Grigoropoulou (Durham) on ‘Christos Yannaras as a
teacher: lineaments of a distinct work. She spoke through experience. She had
first met Yannara through his books in her teen years. She explained that a
great teacher is one who inspires, not one who merely transmits knowledge. A
book has the power of achieving this objective. Yannaras is thus one of the
most eminent figures in Greece, an authentic spirit, an inspired mind. Even his
critics understand his intellect. It is evident that he has offered much to
theology, playing a crucial role in the transformation of Greek theology.
Yannaras explains that the Church is about metanoia; an invitation to a
journey. Dr Evaggelia pointed out that apophaticism is crucial because it does
not lead Christianity in being just an ideology. It is easily identifiable that
eros is to be found in Yannaras’ work; eros is to be found in the life and
heart of the Church.

Dionysios Skliris (University of
Paris – Sorbonne) gave a paper on ‘The use of the term “tropos” (“mode”) by
Christos Yannaras’. He explained the possible sources of the use of the term
tropos and their original synthesis; the mode of existence and the mode of
energy; he looked into the question of whether tropos leads to a philosophy of
adverbs; logos, tropos and logos-tropos; tropos and eros; tropos and
personhood; concluding with some criticisms to Yannaras’ ontology and some
possible answers to them.

Professor Neil Messer (University
of Winchester) spoke about ‘The contribution of Yannaras in modern Christian
ethics’. He gave a protestant theological approach to Yannaras’ works, looking
specifically into the book ‘Freedom and Morality’. The problem of morality has
been linked with the existential reality of humanity. We understand the person
as an individual. He spoke about various issues within Christian Ethics. The
speaker emphasised the fact that the Church does not have a social ethic, but
is a social ethic.

Dr Mary B. Cunningham (University
of Nottingham) gave a paper on ‘Logos as Signifier: the Relationship between
Divine and Created Being in the Thought of Christos Yannaras’. The speaker
looked into the book ‘Person and Ethos’. She argued that Yannaras understands
the patristic creation in an innovative way, promoting the relationship between
divine and creative being. There is an interaction of God, through erotic love;
a relationship of personal communion. According to Yannaras, the Christian God
is personal. The Logos provides meaning to each creative being. Someone exists
in otherness, in our relationship with our Creator. Dr Cunningham later
explained the vehicle of God’s self-expression in the world. The Logos
functions; the Logos is the means of communication between divine and creation.
Words and images connect us to the prototype in a mysterious way, inaccessible
to many.

Dr Natalie Depraz (University of
Rouen) analysed the topic of ‘Apophaticism and phenomenology: Christos Yannaras
in the light of Jean-Luc Marion’. The last paper of the conference was given by
Prof John Hadjinicolaou (University of Sherbrooke, Canada) ‘Concerning
Affinity: a Personal Testimony’. His talk was different from all the rest,
which analysed academically the work of Yannaras. His personal encounter with
Yannaras gave a unique feel, being the best way in concluding this important
and interesting conference. He analysed a number of ideas expressed by the
guest of honour. He ended his talk by quoting a couple of Yannaras’ work:

But the new prophet has not yet appeared. Will it be the martyr, the
monk, or some other totally new charismatic figure? …In the end, he will break
with his hands the living bread of truth and distribute it to the famished
people. (Crisis of Prophecy, 64).

This Alyosha, this teacher, doctor, day-labourer, …who might even have
been called Christos, …those very few who held out and did not surrender, I
mean to say, this tragic Odysseus of mine, pitiful and untravelled and yet more
of an Odysseus than all the wanderers of our time put together. His footsteps
still echo in our streets, but their sound is now alien to our ears…every step
he takes is at the same time a departure, his shadow goes on ahead, he is in a
hurry, he wants to tear himself away and flee, floundering about as he is at
the margins of our captive itself…(Ascesis in Twelve Stories, 29).

My God, amidst the night of our world this man is a sign from You…

The conference ended with the
conference banquet in honour of Christos Yannaras. There Fr Andreas
Andreopoulos expressed his gratitude to everyone for presenting their papers,
for everyone who was present at the conference and the organisers. Finally, Christos
Yannaras expressed his amazement at the fact that his work was not criticised
by the big names, by accredited and famous academics, but by young academics,
who are interested in his work. This reality gives him hope for the future of
both our world and the Church. At the end he embraced every participant, giving advice to continue our work, talking to each one of us like a parent in a loving and Christian manner.

About Me

I have studied Theology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Theology, International Relations at the University of London (Queen Mary). My Master's Thesis was published as a book: 'The Aegean Sea Dispute Between Greece and Turkey - The Consequences for NATO and the EU'. For more information see: http://www.akakia.net/el/the-aegean-sea-dispute-between-greece-and-turkey
I have also studied Byzantine Music in Athens and I am currently undertaking a research on the “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius and its contribution towards Anglican – Orthodox Relations”, at the University of Winchester.
I also represent the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain at the A.E.C.A. If you wish to contact me you can email me: demetrifs1@yahoo.com